In America circa 1955, the Baby Boom was in full swing, postwar prosperity and optimism were strong, and new suburban developments were cropping up across the land. All good reasons to get a new car, and one vehicle type that was tempting buyers in ever greater numbers was the station wagon. Though the wagon body style had been around for decades, during the 1950s the vehicles became family favorites, and domestic automakers offered a broad array of choices. So it was only natural that Motor Trend would take a comprehensive look at the station wagon segment, pointing out pros and cons for all the U.S. brands.

Open the August 1955 issue of Motor Trend and on the first page you’d see an ad for the Plymouth Suburban. Excellent placement given the cover headline topic, and Chrysler Corporation was the only automaker to run wagon advertising in that issue.

For the ultimate in family cookouts on the go, check out the Camp-‘N’-Wagon. The $295 accessory ($2,649 adjusted!) provided a water spigot and cooking area to make meals a cinch no matter how far into the woods a family dared to venture.

When it came to the inside of “covered wagons” for the 1950s, surely no other make could top the Plymouth with its ribbed “rubber resin alloy” headliner.

Though really more truck than wagon–and a true precursor to today’s SUVs–the Willy’s was still showcased in the wagon article, though Motor Trend noted that it was more of a rugged backwoodsman than a versatile family hauler.

There were plenty of choices and configurations available for American wagons in 1955, from the thriftiest 2-door, 2-seat 6-cylinder all the way to a glitzy 4-door, 3-seat, V8-powered “luxury” wagon. Plus, for the first time, you could even get air conditioning factory-installed on a wagon, on the new Chevrolet and Pontiac A-bodies (that must have wreaked havoc on the Sloan Ladder of price and prestige: the more expensive Buick wagon, with the slightly older-design B-body, did not offer built-in A/C).

So imagine you were shopping in 1955 and had decided a wagon was the right choice for your needs. Which one would you pick?

For me, I’d have gone with the Ford Country Squire, V8 of course. Ford durability and functionality would be perfect for a utility vehicle, plus who could resist Di-Noc wood paneling for a little Fifties-style showboating?

88 Comments

I’ll second the Ford Country Squire, in black with V8 and air. We had a ’56 so equipped, and I remember it as a great car, although I was awfully young. The A/C must have been a dealer add on, though. I’m not sure how widespread factory air was then.

Correct Geeber. The 1954 Pontiac had a fully integrated dash system, with all components under the hood. Likewise the 1954 Nash with Weather-Eye. Each claims to have been the first with this system.

Chevy went with the fully integrated system in 1955. Curiously, Ford had a dash integrated system in 1956 or so, then went to a hang-on unit in 1959. It wasn’t until 1965 that the fully integrated system returned.

Interesting – factory A/C not available in Buick wagons but available in the lower divisions of Chevrolet and Pontiac. Dealers in places such as Texas, Florida, California, and Arizona must have adding it to cars before delivery. Nash/Kelvinator was a real pioneer with integrated A/C, and contemporary reports were that it worked well.

The wagon’s base prices were about $2000 in 1955, with the A/C near $600. By the late 60’s the wagons base price is around $3000 but the A/C is $360 for a Chevrolet and $420 for Pontiac (and Olds or Buick). This shows applying inflation indexing to a single item is useless.

You’ve shown that the price of air conditioning actually dropped in real dollars as time went on, due to greater economies of scale and automakers figuring out how to make it in a more cost-effective manner. This is a big reason why it became more popular.

Applying the inflation index to the cost back in 1955 shows why it was not popular – it was hugely expensive, both then and now, and thus added a considerable amount to the total cost of the car. This was particularly crucial when car loans were often limited to two years, and a buyer was expected to have a 20 percent down payment.

SomeOneInTheWildWest

Posted August 25, 2016 at 3:26 PM

Now A/C is nearly standard on everything. Ten years ago it was optional on some basic cars, for about $800. I think that the price in 1955 was high because they did not expect to sell very many (and maybe could not build every car with one), so the price was high, but the cost to build was probably quite high too.

Air conditioned houses were not common either.

The inflation index is really a measure of the dollars value relative to the past, with the early 80’s (around 1983-84) defined to be about 100%.

The ‘white collar workhorse’, complete with necktie and smoke, is an interesting presage of telecommuting. I doubt that anyone took up the suggestion. A newspaper reporter would more likely take notes in shorthand and later dictate by phone; a radio remote would use a panel truck with a real desk inside. There wasn’t a situation where the reporter would need to type on the tailgate.

Is there anything that better exhibits mid-century (20th) Americana than the family station wagon? Our cub scout pack den mother had a 1966 Bonneville Safari wagon. Of course the entire pack of 8-10 year-olds fit in it with ‘Mom’ behind the wheel.

It’s not hard to see why the Ford was the most popular – it was a really good looking wagon, and quite functional. I could have been very happy with either a Country Squire or Country Sedan.

If cost were no object, a New Yorker Town & Country would be in my driveway. The 55 Chrysler wagon was a beauty, and this would have been a real luxury.

However, the Stude-Homer in me is also intrigued by the 2 door Conestoga wagon. It would have to be a Commander version with the V8 and probably a 3 speed/overdrive unit. I think the 56 looks better as a wagon than the 55, but I could still live with the fabulous fish face. So, in short, it would have been a really tough choice.

Ford always seemed to pay special attention to wagons, offering more models, variations and equipment than GM and Chrysler. It seemed as if Ford designed wagons from scratch, as opposed to GM that just cobbled together an existing sedan. The extra attention paid dividends, as Ford wagons always seemed more popular.

Problem with the Chevrolets and, I assume, other GM wagons of this generation was the finicky latches for the upper tailgate. Little sprung nubs snapped into holes in the telescoping track to hold it up at various positions. But they would often fail to snap in fully, and the upper gate would either fall (no sprung hinges) or drop lopsided. They also squeaked.

In the (just barely) middle class, Baby Boomer “demand area” suburban neighborhood that I grew up in; it was rare to see a driveway that did not have an American station wagon in the driveway.

Twenty-somethings of today just cannot comprehend how desirable a new(er) house in the ‘burbs with a Ford, Chevy or Mopar station wagon in the driveway, was for the WWII/Korean Conflict generation.

The few people here who recall what I post here might recognize this pic. My Depression babies/Korean conflict generation Parents thought they “had arrived” with this house, car & family! Thanks to a strong union job and careful budgeting they both had come SO far in their first 40 years!

HOW true! The above pictured house was bought for 4 children, was 4 bedrooms & 2 bathrooms, 1800 square feet, was considered “almost” upscale for the time period. The 3 bedroom/1 bath house my Parents had before, purchased with Dad’s “GI Bill” financing, was about half the square footage of this one.

This house would be rejected for today’s twenty-somethings, with one or two kids, as being too small or “basic”.

Very true. The majority of my neighborhood was built between 1946 and 1950 (though with outliers as far back as 1910 and as recent as the 90’s). My house is one of the ’46 models, 4 br/1850 sf (above grade), and it’s one of the larger ones. The majority are 3 br/1.5 ba of about 1500 sf. That seemed to be more of the standard at the time unless you were living in a distinctly affluent area.

Also “guilty as charged” on thinking more is needed, even though I’m a thirty-something (36) rather than a twenty-something. I’m married but we don’t have kids (yet) and one of the things that appealed to us about this house was the size. It’s got a recently finished basement family room and bath that brings the total square footage to about 2300. When house-hunting last year, our lower bound in size was 1500 sf, and we don’t even plan to have a large family…but we both grew up in small houses and wanted to avoid the claustrophobic conditions of our youth! Different times.

My folks had a red with white (cream?) 55 Country sedan and 1 aunt and uncle had 2 solid color 55 Country Sedans: a black one and a bottle green one. These would be the 1st wagons that would be bought by my extended family. After those wagons, all 7 of my uncles would eventually buy a series of wagons as their families grew. My favorites were a 58 Nomad one uncle owned and a 65 Country Sedan another uncle owned.

Century Coronado with “automotive styling”. Painted trim over varnished mahogany, it was styled by Richard Arbib whose work includes the Packard Panamanian show car and the asymmetric Hamilton wristwatches. I just saw a Coronado at a car show in Newburyport MA. These were powered by Cadillac or Chrysler engines and were the fasted production boats in their day.

IMO the 2 door Ford wagon, with the trim level that included the chrome sweeping spear top of the front fender/down the side trim, with two tone paint, was just as (if not more) desirable that the Chebby wagon.

I dunno, the PowerGlide wasn’t really all that old in 1955. And was the original FordOMatic (the three speed that acted like a 2 speed most of the time because you had to manually engage first) really all that great?

I find early automatic transmissions fascinating because there were so many theories about how one should work. It was the wild west compared to the late 1960s when they were all pretty much the same in concept.

Drive the two automatic transmission equipped car and I believe you will notice the difference.

IIRC, having not driven either car for over 30 years, low gear was available on the Ford when needed, if the gas pedal was floored (such as shooting across intersections) or if low was manually selected.

The two speed PowerGlide was a dangerously slow dog when TRYING to merge on expressways or crowed roads. Either it would Leisurely Lug along in high gear or downshift to low, screaming it’s guts out and not making much progress.

My calling the PowerGlide “ancient” was perhaps a tad bit too harsh for the model year in this article. The PG hung on for SO long (into the 1970’s!) that I tend to think of it as “ancient”. In 1955 it wasn’t all that old; just slow and inefficient always.

The Nomad, with the “Three on the Tree” manual transmission with overdrive would had been my Chevy Choice.

I agree that the early automatics were a “mixed bag” of features and detriments.

The Powerglide wasn’t inefficient. In fact its intrinsic efficiency, about the best of any automatic during the 50s-60s (in terms of parasitic losses) is one of the reasons it became so popular with drag racers.

Comparing any old-school automatic to a manual is irrelevant. of course the manuals were more efficient, and gave better performance. But many buyers wanted the convenience of the automatic, pure and simple. And until the three-speed automatics came along in the late 50s, the PG was quite up to snuff.

I’d like you to confirm that the old Fordomatic automatically shifted into Low on full throttle. That’s not what I remember. It was essentially the same as a PG, unless Low was selected, and that was a rough shift. And it was not recommended to do regularly.

While there’s no doubt that the three-speed TorqueFlite and FMX were better, the Chevy’s high-winding V8s did overcome the lack of an intermediate gear to some extent.

In 1955, the PG was not in the least bit compromised.

And don’t forget that the PG only used Drive (unless Low was selected) until 1953. That was the reason the engines with PG were more powerful.

Paul: My last experience with the 1950’s Ford/Borg Warner automatic transmissions was in the late 1970’s, in my gorgeous ’53 Studebaker Champion Regal Starlight hardtop. Perhaps the passing of time has dimmed my memory.

I do recall it starting off in first gear if you floored the gas or manually shifted it into low gear. Other wise it would start off in second gear and automatically shift into high/3rd gear.

I (perhaps incorrectly?) assumed that the Fords were the same? The “old timer” friends of my Father and Uncles told me the Studie and Fords used the same automatic tranny. I tried several times to purchase and early/mid 1950’s Ford several times, never succeeded.

The Aamco dealer, who eventually rebuilt the automatic tranny in the Studie, told me he “combed thru his Ford parts” to find the needed parts to rebuild the Studie’s tranny. He also advised not to manually shift it into low too often. Since I bought their “Lifetime Warranty” on the rebuild I ignored their sage advice and used low gear for take offs almost every time. The Studie was SO much more peppier using low gear!

Mark, Studebaker’s Automatic Drive (DG), developed in conjunction with BW’s Detroit Gear Division in 1950, was a totally different unit than the the Fordomatic, which was designed by a different unit of BW. The Studebaker Automatic Drive was the most advanced automatic of its time, because it offered a direct drive option (lock up torque converter). It started in intermediate gear (2), but Low could be manually selected. But high production costs forced Studebaker to switch to BW’s cheaper unit in 1955, essentially the same unit as the Fordomatic. The Fordomatic (and the 1955-up Studebaker BW unit) used only two of its three gears normally. Low could be selected for extremely steep grades, but was not recommended to be used for normal driving. Curiously, some six cylinder Flightomatics (1956-1957) did start in Low automatically, but that’s not the case with Ford’s Fordomatic, which only ever started in 2nd.

I drove a 63 Impala with a power glide and a 327 V8. Performance was good from a standstill, but there was no passing gear. I also drove a 50 Buick with dynaflow, which was much worse for performance in drive. I would not call either transmission slip and slide. Neither were as good as the Chrysler torqueflite though, which I did not get to drive but my parents did own one.

The two door Studebaker wagon, Just because it looks kinda goofy.
I love it.
In the picture from the review it looks like a Vega/Monza wagon with a body kit. (too me anyway) I know it was probably a lot bigger than a Vega but still,

Minivans, and to a lesser extent smaller wagons (think of how many FWD A-body GM wagons and Taurus wagons used to roam the roads). But primarily minivans; I have to wonder what collective wagon sales looked at in 1983 (the last year pre-minivan) and then in ’86 once each of the Big 3 had one.

Dang, I forgot the minivans / MPVs ! Thanks ! It has been almost 35 years since the Caravan was introduced. And the Renault Espace on this side of the pond.

Station wagons are more popular here right now than ever before. From the B-segment Renault Clio to the E-segment Audi A6 etc., so take your pick.

Right into the eighties the wagon was bought and used as an ideal mixture between a family car and a commercial vehicle. But that all changed with the introduction of the “life-style wagons”, mainly from Audi and BMW. Since then their popularity has been growing.

You’re forgetting SUVs. The smaller ones, like the Cherokee and Ford Explorer became mega-hits. The Explores sold almost a half-million per year in its best years. It became the Country Squire of its time.

Since Johannes referenced “before the Great SUV-breakthrough” I was looking for the previous cause. Generally speaking on the death of the (non-enthusiast) wagon, I think the minivans dealt the mortal blow and then the SUVs finished the job.

It’s was more like a 1-2 punch. Keep in mind that SUV sales had been growing strongly ever since the early-mid 70s, long before minivans came on the scene. There’s little doubt in my mind that the Blazer, Bronco, Wagoneer/Cherokee (SJ) etc, as well as the rapidly growing sales of the Suburban were already having a very substantial impact on wagon sales. Obviously not a death blow yet, but it hurt. And the growing popularity of SUVs in the 70s and early 80s made them cool, image-wise, and that’s directly what made the Cherokee (XJ), Blazer S10, Bronco II and other compact SUVs so madly popular when they arrived in 1983, a full year before the Chrysler minivans.

It would be interesting to compare all SUV sales to minivan sales during the 70s, 80s, 90s and up.

And for those who really liked the hauling capacity, you also had the growth of extended and club cab pickups. It was a car for all seasons done in by seemingly more specialized vehicles (mpv = people mover, suv = off-road, pickup = heavy hauler) whose specialized capabilities are seldom if ever used.

Baby boomers and Gen X kids who were so thoroughly sick of riding around in their parents’ dorky wagons that they wouldn’t be caught dead in one. With their smaller families, sport sedans ruled and for those who needed more room, minivans.

And now, the generation that rode around in minivans is killing that market off as well.

Neil: And don’t forget the various Peugeots, Renaults and Simcas foisted off on the unsuspecting American buying public! Car that were awesome in “LaBelle France” but total dogs in the American market.

🙂

nlpnt

Posted August 24, 2016 at 7:01 PM

Mike’s mom in Stranger Things was probably a more typical Colony Park owner.

I watch Hazel everyday on Antenna TV. When the series started the Baxters just had a 62 Country Squire. Not long after the series started, a Falcon was seen in the driveway and occasionally Mr. Baxter was seen getting out of it. In 63 the Falcon was replaced by a Galaxie 500 (XL?) convertible and the wagon “disappeared”. For 64, a newer Galaxie convertible (still red on red, like the 63) replaced the older model and a Country Squire returned, also a 64. In 65, a 4 door Galaxie replaced both cars, apparently, as no 65 wagon replaced the 64.
When the series changed networks for it’s final season (or 2?), the Fords dissappeared and Hazel occasionally was seen driving a Buick Special/Skylark.

Oddly, once their only child hit a certain age, the wagons dissappeared while in my experience folks traded sedans for the “modern” station wagon: the SUV, once their kids hit an age where there were lots of after school activities that they needed to be driven to….along with a carload of friends.

But keep in mind that the station wagon also doubled as a utility vehicle, as pickup trucks were not typically owned by urban dwellers yet. And that extended family (grandparents typically) were often passengers for trips to church on Sunday morning, so when you only had one vehicle, it probably made much more sense to have a wagon than a 2-door hardtop.

I’ve always loved wagons for their usefulness if nothing else from small ( Datsun 510 1974 I think ) to the biggest ( Ford Country Squire 1976 ) and everything in between. I miss that market segment . I guess SUVs have taken over and I don’t think for the better necessarily.

My father purchased a new 1956 Ford Ranch Wagon in July 1956, replacing our 1949 Kaiser Special. We had just moved to the country up a 2 mile steep hill that was a slow haul in the Kaiser. I was 12 years old at the time so the Ranch Wagon was the car I learned to drive four years later. (Actually we had a 200 foot lane up through our 4 acre apple orchard so I began driving the wagon almost immediately at age 12) It was equipped with Thunderbird V-8, 3 speed manual transmission and dual exhaust that rumbled nicely, especially with the tailgate window in the up position. We had no clock, radio, or power anything, and of course no air conditioning. It cost $2700 less $400 trade for the 49 Kaiser. The upholstery was hardy vinyl that felt like leather and was covered with ranch brands – very nice look. Dad got the wagon because we had to haul two garbage cans to the dump every Saturday plus the Kaiser just couldn’t make the steep hill. Overall it was a great car that I loved driving but it started rusting out after two years and it was a constant battle to keep it looking decent for the seven years we had it. It was traded in 1963 for a new Corvair Monza with four on the floor. By then we had garbage pickup service! The second worst problem with the Ranch Wagon after the rust problem was the dual exhaust system. We had very rough winters in northern Pennsylvania in those days and lots of salt was used on the roads. It seemed that every year at least one muffler and tailpipe would have to be replaced. That really irked my father and he began changing them himself.

I always thought wagons provided the best combination of styling, cargo-room, ride and handling.
Especially compared to many vans and SUVs.
Sadly, if one wants a wagon today, most of the selection it the US is between a few pricey new imports, or even more pricey vintage models.
Though you can still find a relatively affordable Taurus/Sable wagon (if it doesn’t wind up needing a tranny rebuild) or the somewhat more expensive Toyota Camry/Corolla and Volvo 240 models.

Our first wagon was a ’59 Chevy Brookwood. Two door version because dad was afraid of us opening rear doors and falling out. Brookwood was low end trim, but well equipped with V-8, Powerglide, power steering, push button radio, heater/defroster and whitewalls.